Texts Reveal Prosecutor’s Ex-law Partner Implicated In Providing Information To Remove Fani Willis From Election Case

Aiexpress – Attorneys representing Donald Trump and other defendants in the Georgia election interference case were optimistic that lawyer Terrence Bradley would offer crucial testimony to support their efforts to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Bradley had been communicating with Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer representing Michael Roman, one of the co-defendants of Trump. The Associated Press obtained hundreds of text messages provided by Merchant as evidence, revealing their ongoing interaction over several months.

Bradley provided Merchant with information and suggestions through text messages to help her establish evidence of Willis’ relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor involved in the election case. Given Bradley’s previous association with Wade as his former law partner and divorce attorney, he had insider knowledge that supported his claims. The text messages substantiate Bradley’s position and reinforce his credibility.

When Bradley appeared as a witness in February, he initially declined to answer the majority of questions, citing attorney-client privilege. However, after the judge ruled that some of his communications with Wade were not covered by privilege, he was compelled to testify. During his testimony, Bradley claimed not to know or remember significant details. CNN released a report on the text messages on Wednesday.

In a motion filed on January 8, Merchant sought to remove Willis and Wade, along with their offices, from the election case and requested the dismissal of the indictment against Trump and 14 others. Merchant claimed that the prosecutors had a romantic relationship prior to Wade’s hiring in November 2021. Furthermore, she alleged that Willis had paid Wade substantial amounts of money and had improperly benefited from his earnings by going on vacations together.

Copy

Merchant sent a text to Bradley expressing her nerves on the day she filed her motion. She emphasized the significance of the situation, stating, “This is huge.”

He filled my inbox with a series of uplifting messages: “You’ve got this,” “Everything will be alright,” “You’re one of the most talented lawyers I’ve ever known,” “Go out there and show them what you’re made of.”

Bradley willingly shared information with Merchant from mid-September through early February, as evident from the text exchanges. However, when questioned by Merchant on Tuesday about certain details, Bradley either claimed not to recall, speculated, or suggested that she misinterpreted his messages.

During the hearing, Bradley repeatedly stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the exact start of the relationship.

Merchant expressed his frustration to Judge Scott McAfee in Fulton County Superior Court, stating, “Judge, at the moment, he has very little recollection of anything.”

McAfee will be holding arguments on Friday regarding the motions to disqualify Willis and her office from the election case. It remains uncertain as to whether the attorneys representing Trump and his co-defendants have successfully demonstrated that Willis and Wade’s relationship has created a conflict of interest.

Willis and Wade confirmed their relationship in February, clarifying that it started after Wade was hired and concluded last summer. They both maintain that their personal connection did not cause any conflicts and had no influence on the election interference case.

The charges related to their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, which was won by President Joe Biden, led to Trump and 18 others being indicted by a Fulton County grand jury in August. However, the focus has shifted away from these charges for almost two months due to the attention on the relationship between Willis and Wade. This distraction may persist even if the judge decides not to remove Willis and her office from the case.

Merchant reached out to Bradley on September 18th, inquiring whether he knew anyone who could provide a sworn statement regarding Willis and Wade’s relationship.

He replied, “No…no one would willingly burn that bridge.”

Merchant reached out to Bradley in mid-December, informing him that she had received additional confirmation regarding the involvement of Fani and Nathan. However, she faced difficulty in finding anyone willing to provide an on-the-record statement.

On January 5th, merely three days prior to submitting her motion, Merchant sent a text message to Bradley, informing him that Wade had taken Willis on a cruise and a trip to Napa Valley in California. She assumed Bradley was already aware of this information. In response, Bradley admitted that he had no knowledge of these trips and inquired about their timing. However, he quickly remarked that he wasn’t surprised, as they had previously embarked on other trips together.

During their conversation, Merchant inquired about Bradley’s opinion on whether the relationship had begun prior to Wade being hired by Willis. Bradley firmly replied, “Absolutely.”

The following day, they had a discussion about the draft of her motion that she had already sent to him. He suggested that she should add a footnote in which she mentions the money he had received from Willis’ office as part of the payment to Wade’s firm.

She inquired if there were any other inaccuracies or omissions after implementing the aforementioned modification.

He replied, saying, “Looks good.”

During Tuesday’s hearing, defense attorneys expressed a great deal of frustration regarding that particular exchange. They questioned Bradley extensively about why he had written something but then claimed on the stand that he couldn’t recall important details that were mentioned in the motion.

Bradley acknowledges the information to Merchant and provides suggestions on the specific records she should request or individuals she should subpoena. While he occasionally expresses a desire to ensure that certain details cannot be traced back to him, he states that he is willing to be subpoenaed and testify if necessary.

Merchant gave him her assurance that she had fully protected him before submitting her motion, adding, “Not that you needed any protection.” She stated her intention to call Willis and Wade as witnesses and was only sending subpoenas to Bradley and other individuals as a precautionary measure.

In a message sent on January 24, Merchant expressed his hope that they would do the right thing before a certain point. Bradley, on the other hand, expressed doubt that they would, referring to Willis and Wade as “arrogant.”

Reference Article

aiexpress
aiexpress
Articles: 2833

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *